SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. Jamadar, J.
Dr. Premshankar Vidyadhar Bhatt & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2022
Decided On : 06-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mahendra Mukund Agavekar, Advocate, Shraddha Chavan, Advocate, Aliabbas Delhiwala, Advocate, S. R. Agarkar, Advocate

Headnote:

ABUSE - Scheduled Castes - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 392, 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989, Sections 3(1),(r), (s), (w), (w)(i) and (w)(ii) - The court discussed the applicability of the interdict contained in Section 18 and 18a of the SC & ST act, 1989 and the nature of the inquiry to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case for the offences punishable under SC & ST act, 1989. It highlighted the legal position that the bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST act, 1989 does not operate if no prima facie case for the offence punishable under the said act is made out. The court also emphasized the duty of the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST act has been prima facie made out. It further noted that the scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited and that the provision in the Special act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecutrix, a member of the Scheduled Castes, alleged abuse and humiliation by the appellants, who were accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989. The appellants sought pre-arrest bail, contending that the prosecution was an instance of abuse of the special enactment to wreak private vengeance.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the interdict contained in Section 18 and 18a of the SC & ST act, 1989 applied with full force and vigour in the facts of the case, and thus declined to entertain the prayer for pre-arrest bail. It held that no interference was warranted in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

Issues: The primary issue was the applicability of the interdict contained in Section 18 and 18a of the SC & ST act, 1989 and the nature of the inquiry to ascertain the existence of a prima facie case for the offences punishable under SC & ST act, 1989. The court also considered the allegations of abuse and humiliation made by the prosecutrix and the contentions of the appellants regarding the abuse of the special enactment to wreak private vengeance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST act has been prima facie made out. It also noted that the scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited and that the provision in the Special act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence. The court held that the interdict contained in Section 18 and 18a of the SC & ST act, 1989 applies with full force and vigour in the facts of the instant case.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

N. J. Jamadar, J. - This appeal is directed against an order dated 23rd December, 2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, Kalyan, in anticipatory Bail application No.2124 of 2021, whereby the prayer of the appellants applicants for pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.767/2021 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code') and under Sections 3(1),(r), (s), (w), (w)(i) and (w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, 1989 ('the SC & ST act, 1989), came to be rejected.

2. The background facts leading to this appeal can be stated in brief as under:

    (a) The prosecutrix is a member of the Scheduled Castes. She is a Dietitian. Her husband is an Orthopedic consultant. They run a hospital 'Kalptaru' at Desai Shopping Centre, Bail Bazar, Kalyan (West). Desai Shopping Centre is a three storied building comprising 'a' and 'B' wings. The prosecutrix and her husband have been running Kalptaru Hospital from the ground, first and second floor of the 'B' wing of Desai Shopping Centre since the year 2013. In april - 2022 they acquired the third floor as well. appellant no.1 Dr. Premshankar Bhatt runs a hospital 'Sarth Hospital' on the second floor of 'a' Wing. He started a franchisee of Metropolis Laboratory thereat. appellant no.1 has, however, installed the hoardings of the Metropolis Laboratory all over the said building.

    (b) On 7th august, 2021 in between 2.00 to 2.30 pm. the prosecutrix was informed by her maintenance supervisor Mr. Dipak Sawant that some persons went to the terrace of the said building to install the hoardings of Metropolis Laboratory and a dispute arose as those persons tried to install the board on the premises in the occupation of the prosecutrix. In the meanwhile, appellant no.1 Dr. Premshankar Bhatt and appellant no.2 Dr. Taranum Sardar passed from in front of the office of the prosecutrix while hurling abuses at the husband of the prosecutrix. appellant no.1 abused the receptionist and demanded the key. after noticing the prosecutrix threat, appellant no.1 abused her in a filthy language. She was allegedly abused with reference to her caste. appellant no.1 allegedly stated that the members of her community did not deserve to become doctors. at the instigation of appellant no.2 Dr. Taranum, appellant no.1 allegedly made indecent gesture towards the prosecutrix and thereby outraged her modesty and charged upon the person of the prosecutrix.

    (c) after the prosecutrix went back to her office, appellant nos.1 and 2 forcefully barged into her cabin. appellant no.1 forcefully opened the drawer of her table. When the prosecutrix resisted, appellant no.1 used criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty. appellant no.2 Dr. Taranum twisted the right hand of the prosecutrix and abused her with reference to her caste and threatened her that she would be assaulted after disrobing her. appellant no.1 allegedly removed a plastic bag containing key and cash amount of Rs.50,000/-from the drawer. after a while, appellant nos.1 and 2 again came on the third floor and abused the prosecutrix and her husband with reference to their caste. They allegedly humiliated Deepak Sawant and Mr. Bhise, the security guard, who are also the members of scheduled caste, being fully cognizant of the said fact.

    (d) The prosecutrix thus approached the police and lodged a complaint in writing on 10th august, 2021. Eventually, after an inquiry, crime came to be registered on 23rd November, 2021 vide CR No.767 of 2021, for the offences punishable under under Sections 392, 354, 509, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Penal Code and under Sections 3(1),(r),(s), (w), (w)(i) and (w)(ii) of the SC & ST act, 1989.

    (e) apprehending the arrest, the appellants preferred an application for pre-arrest bail before the Special Judge, Kalyan. It was contended that there have been disputes betw

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top